Civilization's Future

Energy on Earth has a finite calculable value. Of greater interest is the energy flux. Too much energy in and the Earth gets hot, like Venus. Too little energy in and the Earth cools and returns to its snowball state. If we like the current temperature then we need the same amount of energy coming in as going out so as to maintain the temperature.

The single greatest contributor to energy deposition is of course our Sun. While we see its bright yellow presence in the daytime sky, we only see its rays that are in the visible frequency spectrum. All told, its rays have an infinite number of frequencies, each with unique physical properties. The properties indicate the amount of energy that reflects from the top of the Earth’s atmosphere and the amount that arrives at its surface.

While the Sun in the sky appears the same day after day, we know that it changes. Recently, a solar storm emitted rays that acutely added 26 billion kWh of energy. The Earth, with its amazing ability, was able to reflect most of the energy back into space. Of note, the chronic energy transmission from Earth into space is at least 9.36e20J/day or 3.4e23J/a. Human technology uses over 1e20J/a most which becomes waste heat. It’s not a lot but still it’s a 0.1% increase from per-technology times. It will be interesting to see how the Earth reacts to this addition to the Sun’s regular energy deposition.

Humans use land ownership as a means to establish control and show power. For example, early land owners held power by claiming sole right to vote. Today, though democracies allow nearly all to vote, land owners maintain control over their land. As such, they indiscriminately use any and all living things on their prescribed domain in a manner that they see fit. This is our practical definition of land ownership.

Effects of land ownership are many but nearly all show adversity to the indigenous life. Resource extraction like the clear cutting of forests or open pit mining have humans remove complete ecosystems over vast tracts of land. The same goes for floodway hydro power dams. Farming, perhaps often thought innocuous, is actually most pervasive and a great effecter. Agriculturalists replace a balanced ecosystem with a giant swath of genetically cooked and chemically nurtured monoculture. These agriculturalists own almost 38% of the Earth’s land surface. Consider also that farms have taken the land with the best soil and the best growing conditions. Thus human civilization has marginalized natural ecosystems. We’ve pushed nature to the margins; to land shrouded in ice, to dry deserts or to stunted boreal forests. Over a few thousand years, human ownership has shown that control of the land leads to near catastrophic effects to the indigenous life.

What does this style of land ownership portend for our future? Through rules and regulations we are reducing the impunity of land owners to ravage the land. But, we still need food from farmers and energy from the environment. So, to continue our technological advances we need continue ravaging the land. Can we have a sustainable balance that includes enough land for all other living inhabitants on Earth?

What’s the value of energy? The energy in a tree is pretty small. Perhaps one has enough to keep a warm fire burning outdoors for a couple of hours. Nature parks often sell a bag of split wood for a few dollars so that people can enjoy watching their flames. Yet, a tree is more than a source of logs for burning or planks for building and its value should consider this.

The state of Florida considers trees to be more than a resource for people. There, trees also serve other living creatures. As such, they are given a great value as one couple found out. When they cleared around 100 trees from their shoreline, they were fined $1.6million. That’s $15,000 per tree. Most campers wouldn’t pay that much for a night time fire. Will we be able to afford that when fossil fuels are no longer accessible?

Some people already consider the tree supply to be in jeopardy; a peak-tree moment is at hand. Is this an indicator that people are consuming so many natural resources that the resources are no longer renewable? If trees don’t renew then neither will the living creatures that rely upon them. Will we be content with an Earth after we’ve stripped it of all its natural ecosystem in our thirst for energy and resources?

Where do plants go when they die. You think that they normally fall to the ground and get recycled by microbes into plant food. However the conditions are sometimes not right. Possibly the nutrients and the contained energy remain intact. If this continually occurs over enough time then it accumulates into peat. Given enough time and a few other conditions, the peat becomes coal but that’s another story.

“There are about 4 trillion m³ of peat in the world covering a total of around 2% of global land area (about 3 million km²), containing about 8 billion terajoules of energy“. There is so much energy in this material that electrical power production plants use it as a primary energy source. Global consumption is around 17 million tonnes per annum which is about 4250 terajoules or 0.000843% of primary energy consumption.

Peat is recognized as renewable energy source. So theoretically we will always have access to it as an energy source. However, if we use the peat then no more coal will ever be created. Not a big issue if you expect our civilization to have a temporary existence.

But what if we want more for our civilization. How much peat is being created annually? Is this decreaseing due to our consumption and loss of land due to increasing agricultural demands? Do other life forms need peat? Can peat be used as a source for rocket fuel? While peat has a lot of energy, I don’t think it’s the sole solution for our civilization.

Imagine an intricate system of billions of linked parts. Humans with their highly analytical minds could identify each part and then group the parts. Grouping could be purely observational; those that are round, those that are blue, those that are wet, those that are more important. Further, imagine that each part is interconnected. In a bizarrely complex way, each part relies upon other parts to keep itself functioning. This is one amazing system.

What happens when a part disappears? A new part is made. What happens if a group of parts disappears. Resolving this may be more problematic. No new parts of that group could be made. Thus whatever function was performed must be taken up by other groups. Seems complicated but possible, all one has to do is determine the functions of the group in the system so as to replace them. If the system were a space shuttle then groups of failed parts, say O rings, would already have their function defined and thus be easily replaced. Now consider life on Earth as a system. If groups disappear, such as the die-off of dinosaurs, how does the system react? If we send groups to their demise, like the dodo, do we know and can we survive the consequences?

Sadly, conservationists must consider the effect of die-off. Humans have co-opted so much land area on Earth that other species can no longer get enough food (nutritional energy). Rather than trying to save all species, experts consider triage as an option; they play god and pick and choose which survives. Is this a travesty or is it the disintegration of the system that keeps humans alive? Do we have the wisdom to select which species die and which survive?